The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion

[Faustus5]

Again you accuse me of New Age woo, while citing the science you don't understand.

I am describing the mainstream consensus within science. You are the one entertaining fantasies that your views are what most scientists believe. They absolutely are not.

The whole point is that, when from our perspective, a system in superposition comes in contact with our already classical "environment", it will either very quickly decohere, or instantaneously collapse (which are very importantly two different processes, but this is beside the point here, let's not make it too difficult for you).

A. I thought the "whole point" was that collapse is centered around "us". So you're done with that b.s., finally? Good!

B. "Decoherence" is one model for explaining collapse. But let's not make it too difficult for you.

This one is almost certainly your own personal Deepak Chopra philosophy, not science. Interaction by itself has nothing to do with collapse, for at least 3-4 different reasons.

No one knows the complete, total, and deep reasons for any of the weirder things in QM. But we know for sure that one that is responsible for initiating decoherence/collapse is interaction between one quantum system and another object/system. That's the struggle which computer scientists working in quantum computing deal with on a very pragmatic level every. If you weren't just pretending to know something about this subject, I wouldn't have to point out such basic facts to you.

]
Yes. Again, the original question is, why does classical behaviour seem to be centered on us? QM doesn't suggest that this should be the case, but it is.

No it isn't. This is just a ridiculous, science free fantasy that you couldn't back up with a serious scientific citation from a respected, mainstream source if your life depended on it.

[Atla]

Again you accuse me of New Age woo, while citing the science you don't understand.

I am describing the mainstream consensus within science. You are the one entertaining fantasies that your views are what most scientists believe. They absolutely are not.

The whole point is that, when from our perspective, a system in superposition comes in contact with our already classical "environment", it will either very quickly decohere, or instantaneously collapse (which are very importantly two different processes, but this is beside the point here, let's not make it too difficult for you).

A. I thought the "whole point" was that collapse is centered around "us". So you're done with that b.s., finally? Good!

B. "Decoherence" is one model for explaining collapse. But let's not make it too difficult for you.

This one is almost certainly your own personal Deepak Chopra philosophy, not science. Interaction by itself has nothing to do with collapse, for at least 3-4 different reasons.

No one knows the complete, total, and deep reasons for any of the weirder things in QM. But we know for sure that one that is responsible for initiating decoherence/collapse is interaction between one quantum system and another object/system. That's the struggle which computer scientists working in quantum computing deal with on a very pragmatic level every. If you weren't just pretending to know something about this subject, I wouldn't have to point out such basic facts to you.

]
Yes. Again, the original question is, why does classical behaviour seem to be centered on us? QM doesn't suggest that this should be the case, but it is.

No it isn't. This is just a ridiculous, science free fantasy that you couldn't back up with a serious scientific citation from a respected, mainstream source if your life depended on it.

The mainstream consensus is that decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem, it only iluminates some parts of it. It's even on the Wiki

Decoherence has been used to understand the possibility of the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse. It only provides a framework for apparent wave-function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wave function are decoupled from a coherent system and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. With respect to the measurement problem, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".

So you continue to avoid the issue: why is our "environment" classical in the first place?

And of course there are experiments like the quantum eraser, where the same amount of "exposure to the environment" can lead to both collapsed and non-collapsed behaviour, because decoherence and collapse are two different processes, but as I said that's beside the point here. What you have to answer is, why our corner of the universe seems to be classical in the first place? Why don'T we just experience the world as a bunch of superposition / wavefunction / however you want to conceptualize it, instead?

(6. "but it's the decoherence" evasion.. check)

[Steve3007]

As its name implies, a wave function is an abstract mathematical object rather than a concrete physical object; and mathematical functions cannot literally "collapse". Does a wave function represent anything physical? If yes, what physical entity does it represent?

Yes. Wavefunction collapse is the act of solving a particular class of mathematical equations. I think a major cause of philosophical debate about this kind of thing is simply loose usage of language - specifically mixing the language of solving bits of maths with the language of things happening in the real world. For example, look at the first line of the Wikipedia entry on wave function collapse:

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world...

Reducing a wave function to a single eigenstate is an exercise in pure mathematics. (I've studied it myself - wavefunctions and the mathematical concept of eigenstates). It doesn't, in itself, need to have anything to do with any proposed real world. It can. But it doesn't have to. But the phrase "due to interaction with the external world" mixes this up with a real event happening. I strongly suspect that the writer of that article, or its source material, knew what they were talking about and didn't mean that mixing up to happen. I strongly suspect that they're perfectly aware of how mathematical models work in describing and predicting observations of a putative real world. I strongly suspect that they've studied the subject to a higher level, and more recently, than me, for example. But sloppy use of language, often in the interests of brevity, can sometimes make it look otherwise.

[Terrapin Station]

As its name implies, a wave function is an abstract mathematical object rather than a concrete physical object; and mathematical functions cannot literally "collapse". Does a wave function represent anything physical? If yes, what physical entity does it represent?

Yes. Wavefunction collapse is the act of solving a particular class of mathematical equations. I think a major cause of philosophical debate about this kind of thing is simply loose usage of language - specifically mixing the language of solving bits of maths with the language of things happening in the real world. For example, look at the first line of the Wikipedia entry on wave function collapse:

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world...

Reducing a wave function to a single eigenstate is an exercise in pure mathematics. (I've studied it myself - wavefunctions and the mathematical concept of eigenstates). It doesn't, in itself, need to have anything to do with any proposed real world. It can. But it doesn't have to. But the phrase "due to interaction with the external world" mixes this up with a real event happening. I strongly suspect that the writer of that article, or its source material, knew what they were talking about and didn't mean that mixing up to happen. I strongly suspect that they're perfectly aware of how mathematical models work in describing and predicting observations of a putative real world. I strongly suspect that they've studied the subject to a higher level, and more recently, than me, for example. But sloppy use of language, often in the interests of brevity, can sometimes make it look otherwise.

I think a lot of that stems from the fact that physicists tend to be focused on "practical" matters--models that work, that produce more or less accurate predictions, etc., and not so concerned with philosophical and ontological matters per se (at least not from anything aside from a functionally instrumentalist stance). So there's a difference if we read entries like that from a practical/instrumentalist angle versus reading them from an angle of making (literal) ontological commitments.

The differences do not have to be a big issue, but I've run into a number of situations on boards/in chat rooms where there seems to be an inability to see one perspective or the other, which makes communication impossible at times.

[Faustus5]

So you continue to avoid the issue: why is our "environment" classical in the first place?

That isn't the issue. The issue is your delusional claim that "collapse is centered on us". I understand why you would want to change the subject, seeing as the proposition you've been challenged on is so fundamentally ridiculous.

[Atla]

As its name implies, a wave function is an abstract mathematical object rather than a concrete physical object; and mathematical functions cannot literally "collapse". Does a wave function represent anything physical? If yes, what physical entity does it represent?

Yes. Wavefunction collapse is the act of solving a particular class of mathematical equations. I think a major cause of philosophical debate about this kind of thing is simply loose usage of language - specifically mixing the language of solving bits of maths with the language of things happening in the real world. For example, look at the first line of the Wikipedia entry on wave function collapse:

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world...

Reducing a wave function to a single eigenstate is an exercise in pure mathematics. (I've studied it myself - wavefunctions and the mathematical concept of eigenstates). It doesn't, in itself, need to have anything to do with any proposed real world. It can. But it doesn't have to. But the phrase "due to interaction with the external world" mixes this up with a real event happening. I strongly suspect that the writer of that article, or its source material, knew what they were talking about and didn't mean that mixing up to happen. I strongly suspect that they're perfectly aware of how mathematical models work in describing and predicting observations of a putative real world. I strongly suspect that they've studied the subject to a higher level, and more recently, than me, for example. But sloppy use of language, often in the interests of brevity, can sometimes make it look otherwise.

Wavefunction collapse is an act of solving a particular class of mathematical equations, AND a metaphor for something that's literally happening in the real world. No 'if's and 'but's and 'maybe's.
Physics is the study of the real world, and whatever the metaphor is describing, has actually happened in the real world every single time QM was tested, and now the third of the global economy is based on this happening.

[Atla]

So you continue to avoid the issue: why is our "environment" classical in the first place?

That isn't the issue. The issue is your delusional claim that "collapse is centered on us". I understand why you would want to change the subject, seeing as the proposition you've been challenged on is so fundamentally ridiculous.

They are the same thing, "collapse seems to be centered on us", in other words our "environment" seems to be classical in the first place for some reason. Have you finally given up trying to explain what that reason may be?

[Faustus5]

English is apparently not your first language, seeing as "collapse seems to be centered on us" has a completely different meaning in the language than "our environment seems to be classical". Life must be tough for you.

[Atla]

English is apparently not your first language, seeing as "collapse seems to be centered on us" has a completely different meaning in the language than "our environment seems to be classical". Life must be tough for you.

In English, "collapsed" behaviour and "classical" behaviour mean the same thing in QM. Guess you didn't know that either.

[Faustus5]

In English, "collapsed" behaviour and "classical" behaviour mean the same thing in QM. Guess you didn't know that either.

Still completely unable to cite a scientific, mainstream source saying that "collapse is centered on us".

Your tactic is apparently going to consist of pretending that sentences in English mean completely different things than what normal, mentally stable English speakers interpret them to mean. Or, changing the subject away from silly propositions you now know cannot be defended.

Got it. Your hilarious desperation has been duly noted.

[Atla]

In English, "collapsed" behaviour and "classical" behaviour mean the same thing in QM. Guess you didn't know that either.

Still completely unable to cite a scientific, mainstream source saying that "collapse is centered on us".

Your tactic is apparently going to consist of pretending that sentences in English mean completely different things than what normal, mentally stable English speakers interpret them to mean. Or, changing the subject away from silly propositions you now know cannot be defended.

Got it. Your hilarious desperation has been duly noted.

You couldn't find a single source, even though 100% of every scientific, mainstream source confirms that we can only directly observe single eigenstates, and all of QM is based on this fact?

[Faustus5]

You couldn't find a single source, even though 100% of every scientific, mainstream source confirms that we can only directly observe single eigenstates, and all of QM is based on this fact?

Incoherent gobbeldygook duly noted.

Assuming you have just 1% of a degree of self awareness (I'm being generous), isn't it a little bit troubling to you that with weeks of us going back and forth on this issue, you have not been able to cite one single mainstream scientific source stating that "collapse centers on us"?

[Atla]

You couldn't find a single source, even though 100% of every scientific, mainstream source confirms that we can only directly observe single eigenstates, and all of QM is based on this fact?

Incoherent gobbeldygook duly noted.

Assuming you have just 1% of a degree of self awareness (I'm being generous), isn't it a little bit troubling to you that with weeks of us going back and forth on this issue, you have not been able to cite one single mainstream scientific source stating that "collapse centers on us"?

I said that collapsed behaviour seems to be centered on us. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually centered on us, and doesn't necessarily mean either that it can't happen elsewhere in the universe. 'Us' can also mean a gerat many things. Some kind of consciousness, all humans, all life, the entier biosphere, the local region of the universe, or somethin much wilder that's going on around here. One thing seems to be indisputable fact, collapsed behaviour seems to be centered on us, hence the measurement problem.

Which is something anyone who is actually well-read on the subject, knows. You claimed to be well-read on the subject, but we both knew you were lying out of your ass, because you are a pseudointellectual with personality issues. We are making fun of you here. Next time before you dismiss the founding fouthers of QM as quacks, even though they were all geniuses, maybe you should consider that even if they didn't get it right, they still saw the forest from the trees while you're blind.

Now stop evading the question, why does "collapsed" behaviour seem to be centered on us?

[Faustus5]

One thing seems to be indisputable fact, collapsed behaviour seems to be centered on us, hence the measurement problem.

Funny how this "indisputable fact" is impossible to back up with a mainstream, scientific source. It's almost as if you are making things up.

[Terrapin Station]

Atla can't possibly as much of a condescending a-hole when he's interacting with others in person. That's one of the big disadvantages of this format.